making these places self sustainable would force us to find new markets, create new industry, and be more provincial versus global in our productions.
I vote for this. Economic globalism blows.
We feel like we need protection for how our people work, how our products are produced, how we live. But we won't afford those protections to other people?
If you buy locally produced goods, or goods from sane places you avoid the situation altogether. It no longer becomes profitable to exploit these people. You have to pay more but that is what market price should be anyway. We are not entitled to lower prices through the oppression of others.
Why stop at the level of nation states?
Let's make every town self sufficient.
Nay, every household.
Personally, I can't wait to spend all my time growing my own food with stone age tools and wearing animal pelts.
I don't see what this has to do with what I said. I never suggested anything of the sort.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
making these places self sustainable would force us to find new markets, create new industry, and be more provincial versus global in our productions.
I vote for this. Economic globalism blows.
We feel like we need protection for how our people work, how our products are produced, how we live. But we won't afford those protections to other people?
If you buy locally produced goods, or goods from sane places you avoid the situation altogether. It no longer becomes profitable to exploit these people. You have to pay more but that is what market price should be anyway. We are not entitled to lower prices through the oppression of others.
Why stop at the level of nation states?
Let's make every town self sufficient.
Nay, every household.
Personally, I can't wait to spend all my time growing my own food with stone age tools and wearing animal pelts.
Its not like there could possibly be a middle ground or anything.
Me, I like buying local when its practical. The state economy needs to diversify, and I like the thought that my support can help a wider variety of jobs to become available - I get the sense that a lot of people feel like their only lot in life is an office or retail job, and that doesn't need to be so. With luxury items like coffee and chocolate, its nice to know that the local labour force is less likely to be exploited. Localised supply chains have a smaller carbon footprint, in many cases, though not all. And a lot of the time, the product I get is just plain better - best greek yoghurt I've had in a long time is only sold in a few supermarkets in FNQ.
Maybe its better to say that I don't feel any obligation to buy a 'globalised' product without question, just because the people selling them say I ought to.
How much sustainability? I would say little to no reliance on foreign food products or energy imports would be a HUGE start. I mean, up here in Canada it is almost a possibility, but all of our natural resources are shipped elsewhere. The reasons millions would die is by cutting off foreign aid, especially food, you are going to kill people. The UN World Food Program feed something like 60 million people a year on average. The transition from cash crop to "crop" would also be tough because of the amount of soil degregation caused by the formentioned monoculture. Turn the money from the UN World Food Program into topsoil, and carpet bomb the amazon.
No reliance on foreign products, fine. But trade, when done correctly, allows more consumption by all than would have been possible had the two entities not traded. Also, in Canada, are bananas easily grown? Coffee, tea, cocoa, grouper? Do you, or any of your countrymen, enjoy these products? From what I see as your major exports ( http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/gblec04.htm ), would you as a country need all that, that you are worried about it being shipped out? Honestly, think before you decide that everybody would be better off if they just relied on themselves for food.
If it means that the world is a better place, I can live without eating French bread and driving a import car from Japan while wearing a shirt made in London. Bananas suck, looks too much like a dong to get near my mouth.
Edit2: I couldn't give two shits about Canada. Glottalization is the devil manifested. We rape the forests to feed America's hunger. We raped Alberta for oil, to feed not our own needs but the worlds. We destroyed our fisheries so we could export them. I didn't say that we should rely on OURSELVES for food. I am not talking about going back to the Neolithic age.
We feel like we need protection for how our people work, how our products are produced, how we live. But we won't afford those protections to other people?
If you buy locally produced goods, or goods from sane places you avoid the situation altogether. It no longer becomes profitable to exploit these people. You have to pay more but that is what market price should be anyway. We are not entitled to lower prices through the oppression of others.
Why stop at the level of nation states?
Let's make every town self sufficient.
Nay, every household.
Personally, I can't wait to spend all my time growing my own food with stone age tools and wearing animal pelts.
Its not like there could possibly be a middle ground or anything.
Me, I like buying local when its practical. The state economy needs to diversify, and I like the thought that my support can help a wider variety of jobs to become available - I get the sense that a lot of people feel like their only lot in life is an office or retail job, and that doesn't need to be so. With luxury items like coffee and chocolate, its nice to know that the local labour force is less likely to be exploited. Localised supply chains have a smaller carbon footprint, in many cases, though not all. And a lot of the time, the product I get is just plain better - best greek yoghurt I've had in a long time is only sold in a few supermarkets in FNQ.
Maybe its better to say that I don't feel any obligation to buy a 'globalised' product without question, just because the people selling them say I ought to.
Bingo! How hard is it to have a garden in your back yard? When I was younger and before my father broke his leg we grew potatoes, tomatoes, cucumbers, and something else that I forget (rhubarb maybe?) in our backyard. My dad worked 40 hour shifts, and my mom worked 40 hour days. We had fresh vegetables during the summer. Before she went work crazy we also went to the local fruit farms and picked our own peaches / pears / strawberries, canned them (or turned them into jam) so we had enough for the winter.
I am not suggesting that we revert to the stone age or start gardening 24/7, but you can grow and buy locally without coming by much hardship.
How much sustainability? I would say little to no reliance on foreign food products or energy imports would be a HUGE start. I mean, up here in Canada it is almost a possibility, but all of our natural resources are shipped elsewhere. The reasons millions would die is by cutting off foreign aid, especially food, you are going to kill people. The UN World Food Program feed something like 60 million people a year on average. The transition from cash crop to "crop" would also be tough because of the amount of soil degregation caused by the formentioned monoculture. Turn the money from the UN World Food Program into topsoil, and carpet bomb the amazon.
No reliance on foreign products, fine. But trade, when done correctly, allows more consumption by all than would have been possible had the two entities not traded. Also, in Canada, are bananas easily grown? Coffee, tea, cocoa, grouper? Do you, or any of your countrymen, enjoy these products? From what I see as your major exports ( http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/gblec04.htm ), would you as a country need all that, that you are worried about it being shipped out? Honestly, think before you decide that everybody would be better off if they just relied on themselves for food.
If it means that the world is a better place, I can live without eating French bread and driving a import car from Japan while wearing a shirt made in London. Bananas suck they look like dongs.
That's another thing.
Who are these freaks who drive American cars? You wont catch anyone in my immediate or distant family driving one of those gas guzzling time-bombs.
I thought Ireland had plenty of other crops but the English took them?
Or do you mean they had no trade, and so no way of importing food when the potatoes died and the English stole the rest of the food?
Ireland had plenty of potatoes. They were easy to grow and people lived off them, and fed their livestock off of them. After the introduction of potatoes the population almost tripled over a few generations.
But there was no cash economy and no real trade. People just spent their time living in disgusting poverty, eating and growing potatoes and having children. It was a Malthusian nightmare.
That is very much not the history I learned as a child.
What I was taught (and subsequently read) is that the potato plants were blighted, and although there were other foods being produced, they were 'exported', often under armed guard, to England. The deaths could have been massively reduced if they had kept the other foods they were producing within Ireland.
Perhaps I've misread your post, as it seems to be implying that the potato famine happened purely because of monoculturing (which was hardly the Irish people's choice) and their dirty, Catholic ways. To an Irish person that is Holocaust-denying levels of offensiveness.
I'm sorry, but how is buying locally helping farmers in third world countries compete with ours?
Sustainability. I was talking about third world sustainability, but our own sustainability was brought up. I went off on a tangent, did you read the quote tree?
And how does someone work a 40 hour day?
Days meaning, you know, she worked in the daytime. During the week. For a total of 40 hours. Such hostility!
So now that we're fully sustained how about we help third world countries the best we can until our government gets their head out of their ass and stops giving billions to farmers that don't need it in anyway. Which seems a far kinder tactic than just letting millions die off.
So now that we're fully sustained how about we help third world countries the best we can until our government gets their head out of their ass and stops giving billions to farmers that don't need it in anyway. Which seems a far kinder tactic than just letting millions die off.
Political Correctness can eat my dick. Let loose Darwin on them, cut off aid, the ones that survive will be able to create a self sustaining culture.
So now that we're fully sustained how about we help third world countries the best we can until our government gets their head out of their ass and stops giving billions to farmers that don't need it in anyway. Which seems a far kinder tactic than just letting millions die off.
Political Correctness can eat my dick. Let loose Darwin on them, cut off aid, the ones that survive will be able to create a self sustaining culture.
You are think of social darwinism, you retard. Do you know why the fuck social darwinism is a load of BS?
So now that we're fully sustained how about we help third world countries the best we can until our government gets their head out of their ass and stops giving billions to farmers that don't need it in anyway. Which seems a far kinder tactic than just letting millions die off.
Political Correctness can eat my dick. Let loose Darwin on them, cut off aid, the ones that survive will be able to create a self sustaining culture.
You are think of social darwinism, you retard. Do you know why the fuck social darwinism is a load of BS?
I use them interchangeably(?), depending on the context you can almost always figure out which one the person is referring to. And please, enlighten me so I can think of how retard I am.
Because the world operates on more than survival? Simply being able to survive better doesn't make one justified to letting others die. Particularly if they're the ones who caused the other party to be put in that position.
If, say, I sabotage your business and let you die, this is not acceptable if I just say "He should have been more self sufficient".
Edit: Also, does Libertarian describe your current world view?
Because the world operates on more than survival? Simply being able to survive better doesn't make one justified to letting others die. Particularly if they're the ones who caused the other party to be put in that position.
If, say, I sabotage your business and let you die, this is not acceptable if I just say "He should have been more self sufficient".
Edit:
If you remove foreign aid from the equation, would you not agree that people would die?
Who would decide who lived and who died?
Again, I will go back to my stocking fish analogy, you can not keep stocking(foreign aid) fish (people) in a lake(country / region ) every year, and expect it to, one day, not need stocking, if the ecostystem services and environment donot change.
I can not see the "ecosystem" (economy maybe?) changing, so the only way to fix the problem is to stop stocking the fish, and let the ones that are already there fight it out until their population is so small that they will no longer be harvested(slave labor / poor farmers / blah blah), then their population will naturally increase.
Also, does Libertarian describe your current world view?
I dono, I will have to look it up we never finished that unit in Philosophy :V
I'll buy whatever is cheapest and still fufills my needs. Local fruit and veg because it tastes better and is around the same price, but everything else?
So now that we're fully sustained how about we help third world countries the best we can until our government gets their head out of their ass and stops giving billions to farmers that don't need it in anyway. Which seems a far kinder tactic than just letting millions die off.
Political Correctness can eat my dick. Let loose Darwin on them, cut off aid, the ones that survive will be able to create a self sustaining culture.
Out of place shot at 'political correctness' aside, that doesn't make any sense.
"Cut them loose" and pretend they don't exist doesn't mean sustainability or a better planet. It means they have more incentives to repeat the shittier parts of industrialization, and fuck up their environment in ways that affect everyone because this one interconnected planet.
So now that we're fully sustained how about we help third world countries the best we can until our government gets their head out of their ass and stops giving billions to farmers that don't need it in anyway. Which seems a far kinder tactic than just letting millions die off.
Political Correctness can eat my dick. Let loose Darwin on them, cut off aid, the ones that survive will be able to create a self sustaining culture.
Out of place shot at 'political correctness' aside, that doesn't make any sense.
"Cut them loose" and pretend they don't exist doesn't mean sustainability or a better planet. It means they have more incentives to repeat the shittier parts of industrialization, and fuck up their environment in ways that affect everyone because this one interconnected planet.
Meh.
How do you know that they will repeat the same mistakes? My hope would be that they would become provincialists that would become very involved in making sure that their dependence on foreign entities would never reach the same level as it did. Again, it would be a, for lack of better term, secondary succession of their culture.
So now that we're fully sustained how about we help third world countries the best we can until our government gets their head out of their ass and stops giving billions to farmers that don't need it in anyway. Which seems a far kinder tactic than just letting millions die off.
Political Correctness can eat my dick. Let loose Darwin on them, cut off aid, the ones that survive will be able to create a self sustaining culture.
Out of place shot at 'political correctness' aside, that doesn't make any sense.
"Cut them loose" and pretend they don't exist doesn't mean sustainability or a better planet. It means they have more incentives to repeat the shittier parts of industrialization, and fuck up their environment in ways that affect everyone because this one interconnected planet.
Meh.
How do you know that they will repeat the same mistakes?
Because I know third-world multinationals exist?
Have you ever read up on third-world manufactures? Those guys don't fuck around, or bother too much with things like "don't completely destroy that forest" and "I drink from that river."
Elki, do you mean third-world mulitnationals in the sense of Nike etc, or multinational companies that have their roots in third world countries? If we cut off aid and everyone died, neither would exist.
The were receiving our aid for quite some time to fight the Russians. Once that was accomplished we cut it. Now we have the current situation.
Do you even have any idea what you're talking about?
Ah, I thought you were referring to the current situation in Afghanistan.
"Irrigation systems, crucial to agriculture in Afghanistan's arid climate, were destroyed by aerial bombing and strafing by Soviet or Afghan communist forces. In the worst year of the war, 1985, well over half of all the farmers who remained in Afghanistan had their fields bombed, and over one quarter had their irrigation systems destroyed and their livestock shot by Soviet or Afghan Communist troops, according to a survey conducted by Swedish relief experts [60]"
Wikipedia powers ACTIVATE. How can you expect anyone to be happy and self sustaining if you destroy their agriculture?
Edit: And probably not. But I am having a fun time here, and learn some shit, thats what debating is about right? Now stop insulting me and try to convince me of why you are right not why I am wrong.
Are you being dense on purpose? We gave them money to fight off the Russians. Afterwards, rather than continue to help them become self sufficient our government pulled out the funds. With no schools, no roads, and no realy way to advance Afghanistan fell to whoever would help them who, coincidentally, did not care for America.
It's like you've never heard the word externality.
Elki, do you mean third-world mulitnationals in the sense of Nike etc, or multinational companies that have their roots in third world countries? If we cut off aid and everyone died, neither would exist.
Uh, yes if everyone dies they won't exist. But the world doesn't live on aid, so I'm not sure why you want to talk about that. Aid money isn't really focused on forestalling starvation.
The Tata Group isn't going to disappear because America won't send any money out.
Are you being dense on purpose? We gave them money to fight off the Russians. Afterwards, rather than continue to help them become self sufficient our government pulled out the funds. With no schools, no roads, and no realy way to advance Afghanistan fell to whoever would help them who, coincidentally, did not care for America.
It's like you've never heard the word externality.
They never had a chance.
@Elki, its my solution to the Fair Trade issue, which is why I am dwelling on it. Obviously I am too dumb for this discussion and I will just kill myself.
Are you being dense on purpose? We gave them money to fight off the Russians. Afterwards, rather than continue to help them become self sufficient our government pulled out the funds. With no schools, no roads, and no realy way to advance Afghanistan fell to whoever would help them who, coincidentally, did not care for America.
It's like you've never heard the word externality.
"Irrigation systems, crucial to agriculture in Afghanistan's arid climate, were destroyed by aerial bombing and strafing by Soviet or Afghan communist forces. In the worst year of the war, 1985, well over half of all the farmers who remained in Afghanistan had their fields bombed, and over one quarter had their irrigation systems destroyed and their livestock shot by Soviet or Afghan Communist troops, according to a survey conducted by Swedish relief experts [60]"
.
How can you expect anyone to be happy and self sustaining if you destroy their agriculture?
America did not do that. America was helping them fight the people doing that. America should have helped them recover as well. But instead they left them with nothing the moment their goal was achieved. And now we have that whole Taliban problem going on.
Also, the sum of your ethics seem to be if you see a dying man on the street you'll just walk by and ignore him because he should have been better able to survive.
America did not do that. America was helping them fight the people doing that. America should have helped them recover as well. But instead they left them with nothing the moment their goal was achieved. And now we have that whole Taliban problem going on.
AMERICA pulled out their aid on a country whose means of production for agriculture was DESTROYED. How can you not expect them to turn into angsty mother fuckers?
They were forced to turn elsewhere for their food, became reliant on it, and now they grow opium where it could be wheat.
My ethics concerning economics and politics have nothing whatsoever to deal with my own personal code of ethics.
AMERICA pulled out their aid on a country whose means of production for agriculture was DESTROYED. How can you not expect them to turn into angsty mother fuckers?
They were forced to turn elsewhere for their food, became reliant on it, and now they grow opium where it could be wheat.
So how does that fit in with social darwinism? If we helped them we might be more secure today and therefore both countries would be stronger. It is a win win situation.
AMERICA pulled out their aid on a country whose means of production for agriculture was DESTROYED. How can you not expect them to turn into angsty mother fuckers?
They were forced to turn elsewhere for their food, became reliant on it, and now they grow opium where it could be wheat.
Because of us. They fought a war because of us. They could have surrendered but did not because we said we would help them. And they probably would grow wheat if our farmers weren't actively fucking them over.
My ethics concerning economics and politics have nothing whatsoever to deal with my own personal code of ethics.
Oh so it's okay for you to advocate letting people die if you don't see them?
Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott
I don't see what this has to do with what I said. I never suggested anything of the sort.
but they're listening to every word I say
Actually, that's one thing they did export.
Its not like there could possibly be a middle ground or anything.
Me, I like buying local when its practical. The state economy needs to diversify, and I like the thought that my support can help a wider variety of jobs to become available - I get the sense that a lot of people feel like their only lot in life is an office or retail job, and that doesn't need to be so. With luxury items like coffee and chocolate, its nice to know that the local labour force is less likely to be exploited. Localised supply chains have a smaller carbon footprint, in many cases, though not all. And a lot of the time, the product I get is just plain better - best greek yoghurt I've had in a long time is only sold in a few supermarkets in FNQ.
Maybe its better to say that I don't feel any obligation to buy a 'globalised' product without question, just because the people selling them say I ought to.
If it means that the world is a better place, I can live without eating French bread and driving a import car from Japan while wearing a shirt made in London. Bananas suck, looks too much like a dong to get near my mouth.
Edit2: I couldn't give two shits about Canada. Glottalization is the devil manifested. We rape the forests to feed America's hunger. We raped Alberta for oil, to feed not our own needs but the worlds. We destroyed our fisheries so we could export them. I didn't say that we should rely on OURSELVES for food. I am not talking about going back to the Neolithic age.
Bingo! How hard is it to have a garden in your back yard? When I was younger and before my father broke his leg we grew potatoes, tomatoes, cucumbers, and something else that I forget (rhubarb maybe?) in our backyard. My dad worked 40 hour shifts, and my mom worked 40 hour days. We had fresh vegetables during the summer. Before she went work crazy we also went to the local fruit farms and picked our own peaches / pears / strawberries, canned them (or turned them into jam) so we had enough for the winter.
I am not suggesting that we revert to the stone age or start gardening 24/7, but you can grow and buy locally without coming by much hardship.
That's another thing.
Who are these freaks who drive American cars? You wont catch anyone in my immediate or distant family driving one of those gas guzzling time-bombs.
Freaks.
And how does someone work a 40 hour day?
Uh.
Yeah, perhaps you misread the post.
Days meaning, you know, she worked in the daytime. During the week. For a total of 40 hours. Such hostility!
Political Correctness can eat my dick. Let loose Darwin on them, cut off aid, the ones that survive will be able to create a self sustaining culture.
I use them interchangeably(?), depending on the context you can almost always figure out which one the person is referring to. And please, enlighten me so I can think of how retard I am.
If, say, I sabotage your business and let you die, this is not acceptable if I just say "He should have been more self sufficient".
Edit: Also, does Libertarian describe your current world view?
Give in to the sweet embrace of capital.
If you remove foreign aid from the equation, would you not agree that people would die?
Who would decide who lived and who died?
Again, I will go back to my stocking fish analogy, you can not keep stocking(foreign aid) fish (people) in a lake(country / region ) every year, and expect it to, one day, not need stocking, if the ecostystem services and environment donot change.
I can not see the "ecosystem" (economy maybe?) changing, so the only way to fix the problem is to stop stocking the fish, and let the ones that are already there fight it out until their population is so small that they will no longer be harvested(slave labor / poor farmers / blah blah), then their population will naturally increase.
I dono, I will have to look it up we never finished that unit in Philosophy :V
Maybe I am crazy actually.
Steam | Twitter
Conserving money is still conserving.
Edit: Yes people are fish.
BLOOD OF THE fish BLOOD GOD
Out of place shot at 'political correctness' aside, that doesn't make any sense.
"Cut them loose" and pretend they don't exist doesn't mean sustainability or a better planet. It means they have more incentives to repeat the shittier parts of industrialization, and fuck up their environment in ways that affect everyone because this one interconnected planet.
Meh.
How do you know that they will repeat the same mistakes? My hope would be that they would become provincialists that would become very involved in making sure that their dependence on foreign entities would never reach the same level as it did. Again, it would be a, for lack of better term, secondary succession of their culture.
Because I know third-world multinationals exist?
Have you ever read up on third-world manufactures? Those guys don't fuck around, or bother too much with things like "don't completely destroy that forest" and "I drink from that river."
I am not sure what you are referring too exactly.
Elki, do you mean third-world mulitnationals in the sense of Nike etc, or multinational companies that have their roots in third world countries? If we cut off aid and everyone died, neither would exist.
Do you even have any idea what you're talking about?
Ah, I thought you were referring to the current situation in Afghanistan.
"Irrigation systems, crucial to agriculture in Afghanistan's arid climate, were destroyed by aerial bombing and strafing by Soviet or Afghan communist forces. In the worst year of the war, 1985, well over half of all the farmers who remained in Afghanistan had their fields bombed, and over one quarter had their irrigation systems destroyed and their livestock shot by Soviet or Afghan Communist troops, according to a survey conducted by Swedish relief experts [60]"
Wikipedia powers ACTIVATE. How can you expect anyone to be happy and self sustaining if you destroy their agriculture?
Edit: And probably not. But I am having a fun time here, and learn some shit, thats what debating is about right? Now stop insulting me and try to convince me of why you are right not why I am wrong.
It's like you've never heard the word externality.
Uh, yes if everyone dies they won't exist. But the world doesn't live on aid, so I'm not sure why you want to talk about that. Aid money isn't really focused on forestalling starvation.
The Tata Group isn't going to disappear because America won't send any money out.
They never had a chance.
@Elki, its my solution to the Fair Trade issue, which is why I am dwelling on it. Obviously I am too dumb for this discussion and I will just kill myself.
How can you expect anyone to be happy and self sustaining if you destroy their agriculture?
AMERICA pulled out their aid on a country whose means of production for agriculture was DESTROYED. How can you not expect them to turn into angsty mother fuckers?
They were forced to turn elsewhere for their food, became reliant on it, and now they grow opium where it could be wheat.
My ethics concerning economics and politics have nothing whatsoever to deal with my own personal code of ethics.
Oh so it's okay for you to advocate letting people die if you don't see them?